Bargain using public funds?
text_fields
The language issue has resurfaced with signs of fragmentation at various levels like Hindi-Non-Hindi, North India-South India, Devanagari-Dravidian, Union-Tamil Nadu, Union-States, etc. The latest provocation is the decision taken by Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan to reject Tamil Nadu's stand on the three-language policy, which is a part of the ‘National Education Policy'. The Union government has withheld Rs 2152 crore due to Tamil Nadu under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan scheme. Dharmendra Pradhan says that the National Education Policy should be fully implemented and that money cannot be given without adopting the three-language policy, which is a ‘part’ of it. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin has retorted that the three-language policy is a strategy to forcefully impose Hindi, and there is no question about implementing it. Although the Tamil Nadu BJP has not clarified its stand, all parties of the state, whether ruling or opposition, are on the same page of the state government on this issue. Tamil Nadu, living upto its own name, has a history of vigorously resisting attempts to impose Hindi over the years and taking a political stand in the name of Dravidian unity and winning power. During British rule, in 1937, when the government of C Rajagopalachari was in power and Hindi was made compulsory at the secondary school level, two youths were killed in a protest.
The Union government, which is saying that if it wants to give 2000 crores to the Tamils who have resisted Hindi dominance by shedding blood at various stages, they must agree to impose Hindi, knows only the language of power. Insisting that the Centre's other orders must be obeyed for the Centre to provide the funds that a state deserves is an abuse of power and blackmail. That is why Stalin said that even if Rs 10,000 crore is given instead of 2000, the National Education Policy will not be implemented. Dharmendra Pradhan's argument that the three-language scheme is part of the National Education Policy is also weak. He even went so far as to say that it is part of the Constitution, but there was no answer when Stalin asked which section of the Constitution stipulated that. The three-language formula was formally introduced in the National Education Policy of 1968. Non-Hindi regions (especially Tamil Nadu) strongly opposed it. Although the three-language scheme was retained in the 2020 National Policy, the requirement that one the three languages should be Hindi was removed and it was stated only ‘the will of the respective regions and their students’ – the only condition being that two of the three mandatory languages should be Indian languages. However, when the Union government talks about the three-language scheme, there are reasons to believe that it is to impose Hindi.
The Union government, which is helping to spread Hindi, is not doing much for regional languages. For example, in the 2019 Union Budget, Rs 50 crore was allocated to appoint Hindi teachers in non-Hindi-speaking states. There are many vacancies remaining for language teachers in Kendriya Vidyalayas. In the absence of resources or teachers to teach regional languages, states are forced to adopt Hindi. The three-language scheme itself reflects political interests rather than educational interests. It is not in the interest of the student to insist that a student learn two more languages besides his mother tongue. As Tamil Nadu points out, the three-language-mandate is only meant to hamper Tamil Nadu, which is at the forefront of education with two compulsory languages, Tamil and English. In fact, this is not just a struggle for Tamil Nadu. It constitutes good conduct in the country's policy and resource allocation to accept diversity. Federalism is a core principle of the Constitution. However, the centralization thrust seen in recent times in tax collection and distribution of funds is now spreading to the education sector. As we pointed out in the editorial the other day, the Union Minister's approach to centralizing power using the UGC should not be acceptable to the states, including Kerala and Hindi-speaking states, who have accepted the trilingual scheme. The practice of saying, ‘We will say, you must obey; if you do not, we will not even give you the money we are obligated to give’ is a rejection of federal principles. Initially, education was under the ‘State List’. Later, it was put in the ‘Concurrent List’. An attempt is being made to centralize it all under the NDA regime. Another move against universal education, educational justice, state autonomy, etc., is now being made through the three-language mandate. Those who see this as an issue between the Union Government and the Tamil Nadu Government have fallen into this centralization trap.
